Wednesday, June 28, 2017

the war between the sexes: the aftermath

Ever since the evil ideology known as feminism emerged men and women have been at war. In my view there is no way the conflict between the sexes can be resolved. So what does the future hold?

This is purely a personal view, but I suspect we will see an almost complete separation of the sexes. Our society will in fact be two societies, one male and one female, with very little real contact between the two. Men and women will lead totally separate lives.

When they’re in their 20s women will use men for sex. When they hit their mid-30s they’ll hear that biological clock ticking and they’ll panic and they’ll have one child and the state will raise the child. Marriage will be out of the question. They will have left it too late, and no man is going to want to marry a bitter angry 35-year-old feminist who has spent the previous twenty years treating men like dirt.

Men will increasingly opt out. There’s no upside whatsoever to marriage from a male point of view. You’d have to be insane even to contemplate such foolishness. Men in their 20s might hook up with women for casual sex but even that will increasingly be seen as not worth the misery and the aggravation. Within twenty years or so men will get most of their sex from sex robots. That’s an idea that has been around in science fiction for decades but the technology is catching up with the science fiction.

There are animal species in which the males and females have little or nothing to do with each other. They come together briefly once a year to mate and that’s it. That’s going to be the future for humans as well, except that we probably won’t even bother with the mating part.

Eventually men will figure out that they’re paying all the bills. Women mostly don’t have productive jobs. They work in the bureaucracy or in the “service” sector, in nice comfortable air-conditioned offices where they don’t get their hands dirty and they can spend their time drinking coffee and having meetings. They don’t actually produce wealth for the country. Men do that. When men realise that they’re producing the nation’s wealth whilst women are simply consuming that wealth things could get interesting. Men will discover that if they can’t find the kinds of jobs that allow them to keep their income (in other words jobs where they are paid under the counter) then there’s not much point in working at all. Women, who increasingly control the bureaucracy, will make frantic efforts to prevent men from keeping their income.

Both men and women will face the prospect of long long years of loneliness in the second half of life. Women will have their cats. Men will have porn and beer and gaming. All will be lonely but the relations between the sexes have been so irretrievably poisoned by feminism that will all live out their lonely lives in solitude.

I don’t see any chance of fixing any of this. The damage done by feminism has been so severe that any kind of truce seems unlikely. In all probability relations between the sexes will continue to deteriorate. We’ll end up with a kind of sexual apartheid. Two mutually hostile societies existing side by side in steadily increasing incomprehension and suspicion.

Of course in western Europe things are likely to go in a different direction. Islam will sweep feminism aside as if it had never existed.

21 comments:

Well, if it's not going to be the case in Western Europe, where then? Eastern Europe? Probably not. Russia? I sure hope not, even though we have our share of feminist harpies. China? Certainly not. Japan, South Korea? I don't believe it. Latin America? Might be, but I wouldn't bet on that. Africa, Middle East? Ha, ha. So, I take it you only mean the Anglo-Saxon countries?

Well, if it's not going to be the case in Western Europe, where then? Eastern Europe? Probably not. Russia? I sure hope not, even though we have our share of feminist harpies.

Eastern Europe definitely. It will just take a little longer. Those countries signed their death warrants when they joined the EU. Eventually they will be assimilated into the social and cultural sewer of western Europe. How long can Russia hold out? Putin can't live forever. Will his successors cave in to pressure from the US? Probably.

It's not just US military power and money. It's the relentless cultural pressure - pop music, movies, TV, etc. In eastern Europe it seems that that the young urban elites are already almost completely Americanised. They're the ones who are going to have the power in twenty years time.

Unless the twin Evil Empires, the US and the EU, collapse the long-term prospects are grim.

Looking at contemporary Poland, I can't imagine it becoming like this: it's still very Catholic, pretty conservative, and they have 70% in favor of anti-abortion policy, for example.

It's not really about Putin, but about Russia. You know, we have a saying that in Russia, every single thing can change completely in 10 years, but nothing, not a single thing, not one bit changes in Russia in 100 years. Pretty much all our history proves that it's more or less true. So we'll see. Yes, Putin can't live forever, but who says we're not gonna have a president who's gonna make Putin look like a libertarian extremist in comparison? I wouldn't bet on that.

By the way, another region where everything will be ruined the way you imagine is Scandinavian Europe.

Looking at contemporary Poland, I can't imagine it becoming like this:

Globalism works with terrifying speed. And the cultural onslaught from the US is something that few nations have been able to resist.

I hope you're right. Poland has the advantage that the Catholic Church still exists as a conservative force. If you look at France the Catholic Church had already lost the fight there by the late 19th century. And if you look at Britain the Anglican Church has been a joke for the best part of two centuries. France and Britain have been post-Christian for a very long time.

It's the cultural onslaught that is the key. If you want to save your society you need to build a wall to keep out American cultural filth.

Globalism can only work while fuelled with tons of money, and, according to experts, we have another huge economic storm coming up, and it's gonna be much more severe than 2007-2008. So we'll see what happens.

>>If you want to save your society you need to build a wall to keep out American cultural filth.

By the way: why American only? Lars von Trier isn't an American. Richard Dawkins isn't an American. BBC isn't an American studio. We have plenty of our own filth-makers who's not connected in any way with the US.

By the way: why American only? Lars von Trier isn't an American. Richard Dawkins isn't an American. BBC isn't an American studio. We have plenty of our own filth-makers who's not connected in any way with the US.

True enough, but it's the sheer scale of American cultural exports that is the problem. And American cultural imperialism (a useful term that isn't used very often nowadays) is backed by American military might.

European cultural filth is mostly government-subsidised, like the BBC. We could (assuming a government with the political will to do so) close down the BBC. The luvvies would whine but there isn't a great deal they could do about it. Cut off their government money and they starve. Try banning the importation of Hollywood's cultural poison. The US government would overthrow any European government that tried to do that.

The problem with contemporary extreme liberalism is that you have no idea whom or what you need to defeat in order to clear the world of this mess. With fascism, it was crystal clear: if you kill Hitler, this atrocity is done for. But here, what do you need to do? Defeat the United States? The US and the EU? I don't think it'll be the end of extreme liberalism. Too many people is intoxicated already. Way too many.

And by the way, building walls to keep the cultural trash out won't help nothing. Walls never really work in the long run: take a look at Byzantium, or the Soviet Union for that matter. If we have two global projects trying to outthink each other, we can guess who'll be the winner. If we have one project that only tries to defend itself and another that actually thinks about ways to win, the death of the first project is merely a matter of time.

These are not really competing systems. Russia stopped being competitive after 1991: we have no ideology, no long-term strategy, no nothing. In fact, we're kinda schizophrenic in that respect: in a way, we have a new ideological Civil War between the Whites and the Reds. All we do to defend some positions of ours stems purely from military defense, traditional way of life (more or less), and things without which Russia just can't keep itself alive (military stuff and oil). We have no project, we don't try to befriend other countries. As for China, it's a purely national, not global project. Their expansionism is purely economical, not cultural - even in Asia.

In the eyes of globalists and liberals the existence of any alternative to their system is a threat. The existence of any state that does not accept their program in its entirety is seen as a potential source of encouragement to critics of globalism/liberalism within the West. Those critics must be utterly and completely demoralised and destroyed, therefore Russia and China must be be compelled to obey orders.

The fact that Russia and China present no actual threat is irrelevant. Their existence gives some tiny shred of hope to critics of globalism/liberalism and that hope must be ruthlessly crushed.

Yes, it's a good point about where. We're speaking Britain, Commonwealth, western Europe but eastern Europe does not operate quite that way, as Barmaglot says. Eastern Europe is looking increasingly good to go back to.

The Eastern Europeans have no idea of the scale of the tidal wave of feminism, homosexuality and degeneracy that is going to engulf them. They thought they could join the EU and enjoy all the economic benefits without paying a price. They're going to discover that the price is very high indeed. And there's no way out. They aren't going to be allowed to leave.

I don't believe the eastern Europeans have any strategy in place that would allow them to survive.

It's funny that just now I discovered a British SF novel about this exact thing - men and women divided into two separate societies with funny misconceptions of each other: Meanwhile (1977) by Max Handley.

Is this to say that you are MGTOW? I imagine that if there is a female society that is geographically separated, it will be invaded by an aggressive nation is a heart beat (Islam). But I would then imagine that the neighboring male societies will act first and invade them first to secure their own borders against an aggressive nation.

It's just the way I see society heading. It doesn't mean I approve of it or that I'd like to live that way. I like women and I'd absolutely hate to live in an all-male society. I think feminism has made these changes inevitable and it's a tragedy.

I imagine that if there is a female society that is geographically separated, it will be invaded by an aggressive nation is a heart beat (Islam).

If there is a female society that is geographically separated it will collapse within six months. It's men who do the vast majority of the productive work. If all women refused to go to work tomorrow it would cause some minor inconveniences. If all men refused to go to work tomorrow society would collapse.

We're more likely to end up with a kind of apartheid. At the moment it looks like men will be the second-class citizens but if men realise that they're doing all the productive work that could change.